please spectacular because not only to see it with the cloud cover, and a break, i think we had some good lighting. fully we really did, we were here for this. we were all here for this. >> we saw history! >> i was chanting, as well. i was lucky enough to join those guys in charleston back in august of 2017. we built our own pinhole project, but you don't need to do that, you do need to get eclipse glasses if you plan to look up in many places in the u.s. on monday, you will be able to see at least a partial eclipse, go to science.nasa.gov, plug in your z.i.p. code for the exact information. and on that out of this world note, i wish you a very good night. remember, you can catch the nightcap most fridays and

saturdays at 11:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc and i promise tomorrow night is going to be a good one. from all of our colleagues across the networks and nbc news, thanks for staying up late, see you again tomorrow. u again tom tomorrow. tonight on all in. >> being bad or slow isn't enough of a reason to get off the case. >> a new ruling from trump's florida judge and a quantity for the special counsel. >> the next question really is, what is judge stuff going to do? tonight, the slow walking on the documents case and the dwindling options for jack smith. then-- >> 30 some other banks and in surety forms said no. so, they are have to be a reason why he said yes >> why a subprime auto lender, from california, put up trump's $175 million bond. um what does he get in return? and trump's golf deal with

from saudi arabia, what do they get in return? plus. >> we don't see the changes that we need to see. there will be changes in our own policy. >> new pressure on israel that might actually be working, when all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i am chris hayes. donald trump lost in court today, but, but, but, his handpicked judge has left the door open for him to skirt accountability for his crimes. in a brief three page ruling issued this afternoon, the t judge denied the motion to have his classified documents case completely dismiss, thrown out, under the presidential records act. trump's lawyers effectively argued he had a right to still the documents containing some of our nation's most highly guarded secrets, because he was the president when he obtained them and he could secretly declare them his personal papers if you so inclined. and not tell anyone.

cannot rejected that argument, so that is good, because it is , an absurd argument. but she ruled in this really insidious way that still gives trump an out, so to speak, because in that same order she also rejected a demand for him special counsel, jack smith. to address the underlying question at hand. can trump's lawyers make that same ridiculous case of a presidential record's act to the jurors. can they make the case the classified documents secrets that he hoarded in his back bathroom were actually his property to do with as he wishes? that they had a right to decide which top-secret documents are his personal property, and that such decisions cannot be subject to any scrutiny at all. to be clear, it is a nonsensical argument, it is the literal opposite of the presidential record's accent intent and effect. it is not serious. and judge cannon continues to nn act out like a serious jurist. instead, she is once again bending over backwards to kind

of grand legitimacy, through omission to trump's twisted and laughable interpretation of the law. so, last month she asked both smith and trump's lawyers to draft instructions for potential jury in this trial, based, again, on that fantastical legal argument quote, the president has sole authority on the presidential records act to categorize records as personal or presidential, during his or her presidency, neither a court or a jury is permitted to make or m review such a categorization decision. although there is no formal means of the pra, by which a , president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president's decision to exclude what he, or she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the national archives and records administrationiv constitutes a president's categorization of those records as personal under the pra. again, what this would mean, ai the argument would be, despite there is a presidential recordsr act that requires that states that everything the government

has, right? it belongs to the people, that, instead, depending on what the president wanted to take or not take, that would make whatever is his personal. it is a perversion of what the presidential records act set out to do. understandably, jack smith was not pleased about that order, from judge cameron, which will only serve to confuse and mislead the jury about their role in this case. as he called, correctly, the entire argument quote, unstated and fundamentally flawed. adding quote, legal premise is wrong and a jury instruction that reflect that premise would distort the trial. he then requested that judge cannon rule one way or another on whether she thinks again, this is a serious legal argument. quote, it is vitally important the court promptly pursed decide whether the unstated legal premise underlying the recent order does come into court's view, represent

formulation under the law. but here is where we come to the rub, because today judge cannon pointedly did declined to make such determination. she effectively thumbed her nose at smith's request for prompt decision writing quote, to the extent the special counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instruction brighter trial, prior to charge conference, and prior to presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the court declines that demand is unprecedented and unjust. roof. in other words, no, i am not going to make a decision anytime soon, counselor. in fact, judge cannon argues she might not make a decision until after jury has been sworn in, and that is the key to letting the guy who appointed her to the bench off the hook, because if judge cannon decides to let this ridiculous argument go forward, the president has the power to do whatever he wants, jury those are your instructions. at that point, it is too late for jack smith to do anything about it, because the fifth amendment says you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime, and once those double

jeopardy productions kick in, there is no turning back. once there is a jury there. which means, trump is acquitted because the jury was told a lie about how the law works, there is no way to bring charges him. that possibility hangs, like a potential nuclear bomb looming over all of these proceedings. it could be judged by judge cannon at any moment. she has preserve the option of essentially allowing the ex- president to mount a defense that is based on a fundamentally obvious misstatement of the black letter law. at a defense that everyone acknowledges would allow them to get off scott free. she all but dear the special counsel's office to appeal to a higher court quote, as always any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options that sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law. at this point, special counsel jack smith might be left with it no choice. you know, acted as soliciting gender of the united states, no national security law university. and acting attorney general for

the acting department security of justice, she is cohosting the prosecuting donald trump podcast and they will join me now. let me start with you, because i have to say, i have been trying to understand this and i feel like i am 85% of the way there. but i don't get the jury instruction. like, what is the whole jury instructions and come from? that seems early anyway. like, if they are filing to say that you should dismiss this case, because the presidential records act doesn't allow the records to be brought, okay, she says no. why does this jury instruction issue hangover all of us? >> yeah. i mean ordinarily, chris, you would have jury instructions decide about the charging conference much later. what happened here is that wh judge cannon issued bunkers, two different jury instructions and said to the parties, they can't tell me what you think of them, both of them were just complete misstatements of the law. i mean, just black letter, flat misstatements of the law, and that is what jack smith is

filing over the weekend said, which is, it can't possibly be, as you were saying, this garbage defense, the presidential records act has anything to do with this, and she-- and he asked for her to rule it out of bounds. now, normally judges don't haveo to do that before the trial begins. that is to be sure. but in a circumstance like this, in which the judge has consistently flirted with this defense, you know, you have got, to be worried if you are jack smith, and that is why he is filing over the weekend, said, look, if you can't give me a straight answer, i may need to go to the court of appeals on t what is called technically a writ of mandamus which we can talk about in a minute of what that means, but i might have to go and get clarity, and the reason for it is what you have said. you hit the nail on the head, the double jeopardy provisions with that applied. so, basically, judge cannon could say, during the trial, oh, i think the pra might apply, let in some evidence or

the like, and even if she is 100% wrong, as she is, as every legal scholar, everyone who has frankly got a law degree, i would think, would agree, that the presidential records act has nothing to do with it, and even if the court of appeals that the presidential records act had nothing to do with, what that trial has done, you l can't undo whatever the jury does in that room, because there is a double jeopardy protection and trump will go ot free. and so, that is what the dilemma is for jack smith tonight. yes, he won this, you know, he won this formally, but i guarantee you, there is no one on the special counsel's office that is celebrating tonight. >> yeah, and i would even lower the bar to anyone that has spent 20 minutes reading the sp internet on the presidential records act and where it comes from and why it exists. and i just want to read smith in this filing, because he makes this point clear and then mary, ask about what his options are. you know, his office right, if the court concludes that they have carte blanche to remove any documents than any documents so removed must be

treated as a personal record under the pra as an unreviewable matter of law, and that, also as a matter of law s former president is forever authorized to possess such a document regardless of how highly classified it may be and how it is stored. that would constitute a court clearly erroneous jury instruction that entails a high probability of failure a prosecution and the government must be provided with an opportunity to seek prompt appellate review. prompt appellate review. what are jack smith's options, given the order and also the tone? >> yeah. that is the $65,000 question, right? and this has been so unique to judge cannon all along. she issues rulings that aren't really complete or definitive rulings or what we would call final orders that are appealable, and that is what she has really done here, she said right now, at this point, w based on the indictment, the pra does not provide a reason to dismiss. leaving open, of course, what we have been talking about. so, right now there is not a final order for traditional appeal. there is the prospect of

seeking a writ of mandamus, and to do that, what you are doing is you are going to the court of appeals, like you would on an appeal, but you don't have a final order to appeal and you are saying that the judge made it clear and indisputable error, here it would be, not addressing the legal question that jack smith asked her to address, that there is no other alternative to obtain appeal, and that this kind of an order would be appropriate. now, i think there is another option, before going for a writ of mandamus. if i were jack smith i would beh thinking about filing a motion and lemonade, which is really-- that is latin for at the threshold, which is a preliminary motion that is usually file to seek to preclude the admission of evidence or argument at trial, and it is ruled on before trial, so that the jury won't be prejudiced by evidence that is introduced or argument, right? and so, and there is an obligation, under the federal rules of criminal procedure, for a judge to rule on pretrial motions, where the failure to

rule would preclude appellate review. so, if jack smith were to file a pretrial motion like that, or a motion in limine, and she refused to rule on it or against him, it would, at that point, he could see that mandamus. that is a theory i'm thinking that might avoid some of the problems with their not being a final order. >> okay, what you think of that meal? >> yeah. no, i think mary is right that that is kind of probably were jack smith is headed. i think it is all futile, because judge cannon's order today, this is language, chris, that you quoted before said that, she wouldn't resolve the presidential records act, prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence. so, she wants the evidence to go to the jury first. maybe she will change her mind about that, you know, hope springs eternal, but if i am jack smith i am going to file that motion for an in lemonade, but then go to the court of

appeals, if you don't give me an answer in the next few days, i mean, again, ordinarily, chris, you would never think ch this way about federal judges, you know, ruling for the yo presidential records act, it isr just as you said, so garbage, but she has already had two bunkers rulings last year, and both got slapped down by the court of appeals from the 11th circuit, which is a very rc conservative circuit, and so, if you are smith, i think you are right to worry, you know, where this is headed. you know, just as part of a traditionally doesn't file writs of mandamus, when i was acting solicitor general i had to authorize the role, authorize, i think, one in my time there, so it is something you do really, really rarely, but this is meeting the standard.g >> well, let me give you this. let me give you each of these three oxen and i want to select from the three. this judge is a judge acting in good faith, doing a good job with a difficult case, this is a judge who is pretty new to trial for practice as a district court judge, like

research trial and incredibly difficult, complex case utterly over her head and is making lots of rookie mistakes out of, sort of, tentativeness, but fundamentally in good faith. this is a judge, who is acting in what appears to be bad faith to stall things or aid the man that appointed her position? what of those for you think most accurately describes the situation here? >> so, i think i am sorry, but i am going to split the baby between two and three, i think she is in over her head and is an experience that i think she is trying to make-- she is trying to make herself look like she is being fair to both sides, and what that is doing, really, is giving an edge to mr. trump and she is taking seriously arguments that his attorneys are putting forward that no seasoned judge, no experienced litigator, no experienced national security lawyer for sure, or legal expert would give the time of day two. these would have been rejected s out of hand, probably without even argument. >> neil, your answer?

>> yeah. i am not going to characterize her motivations, i just don't know enough about that. the one thing that really strikes me, as you frame the question, chris, is we have not talked about federal judges this way for most of our country's existence, and we talked about judgments. we didn't talk about who appointed them, and who might benefit from their rulings. and that all changed, because of one person, the guy's name was donald trump, and i remember when i was doing the cases against him, and we won, he started attacking the obama judge and the so-called judge, and althat kind of rhetoric is corrosive, i was glad to see the chief justice rebuked the president for that, chief justice roberts saying, we don't have obama judge is, we don't have trump judges, we just have federal judges, and, unfortunately, you know, trump opened this box, and now it is hard to put it back. >> neal katyal, mary mccord, appreciate it. coming up, i looked at it as a business, and number two,

i was happy to help someone. the latest billionaire to come to trump trustee eight and what trump's latest loan could end up costing consumers on the road. that is next. su that is next. the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

ultra's financial situation is not quite as desperate as it was two weeks ago when he was scrounging around the couch cushions have $1 billion to cover the bond in his new york civil fraud case. he is still squeezed, and horrible and basically walking around a big bright me sign around his neck. remember, trump wriggled out of that immediate peril in new york, after the judge knocked down 10% and give him 10 extra days to figure it out. before that ruling, which came without any real rationale to be honest, trump was in danger of having his assets, if you did not post this bond, new york attorney general, letitia james, could take possession of some of his multimillion dollar properties, which spans several

states. just in the nick of time though, donald trump found a billionaire benefactor to come to his rescue. this is don hankey,-year-old california businessman with more than $7 billion. hankey owns an auto services empire that includes a real estate firm, auto insurance company and a rental car company, but his real claim to fame and fortune is as the king of subprime car loans. >> we had cases, where people would come into our lots, buy a used car or new car, and they would have poor credit, but they had a good down payment, so we decided to carry it on paper, so, buy here pay here is what it is call. so, if someone had $3000, and we had a car that maybe were in 4000 we would get $3000 down from them, sell the car for 6000 and then we would collect there receivable. >> yeah, that is nice work if you can get it. to be clear, these loans are for people with low credit

scores who desperately need a car for their lives to get work, they don't have quite enough cash up front, so, what they do is they end up paying you serious interest rates, like you just heard, and very high fees, and perhaps not surprisingly, that turned out to be an incredibly profitable business. it catapulted don hankey to number 128 on four's most recent list of the richest people in america, a position he seems to enjoy. >> i think i can live without a large boat, i can live without big houses. what i would really love to have is a nice view. wherever i am, i think technology. for the last few years i have been getting picked up in the morning and taken home, and i-- a mercedes. >> no, hankey told the washington post that it was his wife,'s debbie's joyce, they reached out to trump's to negotiate a deal before the court reduced the bond and trump said he had the cash to post it himself. then, to his surprise, the trump team last week were reviving the talks and asked hankey if he would back the new

amount. hankey promptly agreed. he is in the subprime loan business after all, saying that they are offering trump a quote, a modest fee that he declined to disclose. hankey says he has been a trump supporter, but wouldn't consider himself a major supporter. while he's never spoken directly to the president, he did receive a call from trump's son, eric, thanking him for posting the bond. so, we don't know for sure why don hankey decided to this. he's got a lot of money, he likes to come, maybe that is and appeared he told the "new york times" that it is quote, business, and number two, i was happy to help someone. which is sweet. what you think would happen if donald trump gets back into the oval office where he would make appointments to the federal agencies that would regulate some prime auto loans, or if legislation comes up that would seek to raid them in order regulate them? don hankey just put up $105 million for donald trump, he saved trump from the humiliation of having admitting he did not have the cash of having his properties east. what you think would happen if hankey needs a paper or

favorable policy from the trump administration? again, this is just one example of the-- let's say, shady interest capitalizing on donald trump oski financial insecurity good tomorrow, the lav golf miami tournament happens at trump oski golf course. it is funded by saudi arabia's wealth organization. while the trump organization executives say the direct payments from l iv are relatively small, the department itself is of course, a boon for the business occupancy is way up at the resort, where the asking is for hotel rooms more than doubled as the event approached. private chalets to watch the tournament are rented out for $89,000. we have gotten reporting that donald trump recently spoke with the saudi league. remember, trump let a slavishly pro-saudi ministration. the golf was in fact his first international trip as president, which is unheard of, and since he left office, this

foreign actor, again, one that murdered a washington post columnist, was specific material interest in front of the united states government, has been throwing money at his son-in-law, jared kushner. on top of all of that, you reporting from the guardian reports that trump oski social media company which is another big, sort of, bright me stand, with just republic has actually been kept afloat in 2022 by emergency loans provided, in part, by a russian-american businessman under scrutiny in a federal insider trading and money laundering investigation. so, there's another figure with money, who presumably now has the ear of the guy who may run the government at this time. look. trump already led the most flagrantly corrupt administration in u.s. history, at least in recent memory. the first time around. but now, he is under significant financial stress. again, personally and also politically he is open for business, with just about anyone willing to shut money in his pocket, at least whatever

papers they may come knocking for if he becomes the next president. >> going up, going down? down?

president biden spoke a short while ago with per minister, benjamin netanyahu. it is discussion the situation in gaza. the president emphasized that the stress on humanitarian workers in the overall humanitarian situation are unacceptable. he made clear the need for israel to announce a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address the civilian harm, humanitarian

suffering, and the safety of workers. he made clear that u.s. policy, with respect to gaza, will be determined by our assessment of israel's immediate action on the steps. >> today, president joe biden spoke with israeli per minister, benjamin netanyahu and warn him that, if israel does not protect aid workers and civilians, u.s. policy toward israel could change. it was their first call, since a series of israeli airstrikes at that convoy of world central kitchen vehicles in gaza, killing seven aid workers, including an american. after the call, white house spokesperson, john kirby, went to the room to reiterate president biden's message. >> what we want to see are some real changes on the israeli side. and, you know, if we don't see changes from their side, they will have to be changes from our side. >> so then, within hours of the call between biden and benjamin yahoo, which lasted for a long

time, the israeli government approved opening another crossing into gaza in the north, for humanitarian aid. the crossing has been closed since the attack on hamas by israel. the israeli government also a lot more humanitarian aid for 2 additional forums. all of this, just hours after president, joe biden, signaled a willingness to change u.s. policy toward israel. peter welch, democrat of vermont recently hosted a briefing, with chef jose andres, for the center of the world kitchen, which saw several of its workers killed this week from airstrikes. he joins me now. senator, good to have you. first, your reaction to the news we got, the president has a meeting with president, per minister benjamin netanyahu from israel, and this announcement of an additional opening-- into gaza, one that had been closed since october october 7th, what you make of that? >> bottom line, america wants to have nothing to do,

facilitating what is happening in gaza. this is a humanitarian catastrophe, and number one, i think it is time for the united dates to say we will not provide any weapons, any bond that are being used in gaza by israel, not second. when we talk about conditions, the bottom-line condition has to be full counter accommodation for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the suffering people in palestine. that is the obligation that is, by international law, being imposed on israel as they are, in effect, occupying gaza. the number one decision that we make, no way are our munitions going to be used in gaza, and i think that is what the president should say. and number two, as a condition, we have got to open up and have full opportunity to get that food to starving palestinians.

>> i want to represent the israeli government's view on this issue and get a response, because they have been saying, essentially, that they are not limiting a going in. that they-- and i think they are skeptical and they say they are skeptical of the assessment of near starvation conditions inside, and that the ngos are screwing this up for the aid is being taken by hamas, but they are not the obstacle to people being fed in gaza. >> you are given an obstacle when the israelis arms three vehicles on h deliveries from the world central kitchen. i would say that is an obstacle to delivery of aid. >> you just talked about-- i can hearing your voice some passion and anger about this. you think other members of the u.s. senate share that feeling? and-- you know, chris crimes talked about the need, is there

something changing, at least about the democratic caucus, your colleagues in the democratic senate? >> oh, there may very much is. first of all, there some conflict here, because, in fact, hamas is brutal, in that october 7th attack was vicious. so, we understand the reaction, but on the other hand, the suffering and the overreaction and the indiscriminate use of force, as president biden put it, is causing immense suffering . you know, we had doctors in my office who are describing to us amputation of limbs of children without anesthesia and that is happening every single day. so, what is happening now is very damaging for, of course, number one, the residence of the palestinians of gaza. number two, it is totally eroding israel and international community. three, it is eroding the capacity to get to any kind of sustainable beats.

so, it is an understandable reaction, and who are we to speak, after what we did in our overreaction? but the decision-- the president doesn't have to be speaking to benjamin netanyahu at this point, because he is going to do what he is going to do. he is a stubborn guy. and he doesn't listen to and he is using it as a point of pride to folks standing about the president. it is time for us to say we are not going to have our country be part of what is going on in gaza. we are not going to be sending bonds. we are not going to be sending munitions, and we are going to be insisting that not just one crossing the open, but the full capacity to deliver food to starving people the accommodated. that is the condition israel has to meet. >> i want to read to you what senator, chris coombs said today. he said, if benjamin netanyahu were to order the idf into roth at the scale, and make no provision for civilian or humanitarian aid in the southernmost city, the israeli

government says that remnants of hamas fighters and command structure and rafah, the wonderful ground invasion, there is contention over what would happen there, the americans, saying that that would be such a humanitarian disaster that it just can't be contemplated. he says, if they were ordering rafah and that scale then i would i've never said that before, i've never been here before. are you am i not mistaken that you voted against the aid package that came up in the senate a few weeks ago? >> i did. reason i did, is because my expectation is that benjamin netanyahu that he would be overreacting, he would be accommodating the extreme right in his party, the settler movement who have, as a goal, essentially pushing palestinians out of the west bank and of course, out of gaza.

and benjamin netanyahu is hanging onto power, by, basically this extraordinarily indiscriminate war plan. so, my-- i support, obviously, the horror that we all have about the hamas attack, and he has killed-- that warplane has resulted in almost 32,000 palestinian lives being lost. >> senator, peter welch of vermont, i appreciate your time tonight, sir. thank you. still ahead, despite nearly unprecedented economic growth, many voters are still skeptical that the biden economy is really thriving. so, what happens when you ask those same voters to look closer to home? that is next.

>> by basically every metric we have, the american economy is roaring, but voters don't think so. and we have been tracking for months now, a disconnect between what people are telling pollsters about the economy, and what we know about the economy, from the copious data we have. the latest such pulling comes from the wall street journal that found that 74% of right pullers and swing states think inflation has gotten worse over the past year. as the chief economic commentator wrote today, this assessment, which will across all seven dates is startling, sobering and simply not true.

this is not something on which reasonable people can disagree. if our economic data counts for anything, we can say, unambiguously that this has moved the right direction in the past year. and it is not just improving repletion numbers. the stock market is at or near record highs, real wages and wealth are rising, particularly at the bottom of the income scale, unemployment is as low as it has been nearly half a century and stayed low as the economy has grown. u.s. economy is not only strong , it is the best in the world among pure countries, but the polling does not reflect that, and one thing we've seen, okay? is that poll respondents have been, during this period of the disconnect more bullish, some way more bullish about their personal finances than the countries. welcome this wall street journal pulling adds a twist of that, so take a look at this chart. the wall street journal is pulling these folks and seven

swing states. they've asked people in those seven swing states, has your state's economy gotten better the last two, not the u.s., but arizona, georgia or michigan? some people said better, some people set worst, but this chart said far more people said yes, my state's economy has improved. right at the top there's arizona. 31% more people said arizona's economy was going in the right direction. we had improved in the last two years. there were net positives and although states. see it? arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, pennsylvania, wisconsin, the majority in all the swing states said yes, their state economy, when i actually live in is when i do economy stuff in oma it has gotten better. the journal then asked all those people, these are the same people-- and all of those seven states, has the american economy gotten better or worse than last year? this far-- this part was represents how they responded to that one. 31 morris people said the national economy is getting worse. even as they are wildly bullish on their economy. quite a contrast on the chart.

as the journal wrote as it comes to the economy, the fights are facts and divides are winning. be clear. it is not good for the biden campaign. but there might be a silver lining here. here it goes. respondents started feeling more optimistic about their own personal economist. now, in this journal poll, they are feeling more optimistic and better about their state economies maybe it just takes a while for the circle to grow out. maybe another three months from now, it takes a wider recognition that yes, u.s. economy is doing well.

hi, i'm chris and i lost 57 pounds on golo. golo isn't complicated. i don't have to follow a restrictive diet, and i don't have to spend a lot of time making meals. using golo was truly transformative. it was easy, and inexpensive.

with the gametime app, i paid 60% less than this guy. what?! and it's not just sports tickets. it's also concerts. performances too! oh, come on! download gametime. last minute tickets, lowest price. guaranteed.

i am 45 years old for most of my adult life i have been watching in frustration as we have not only done almost nothing about man-made climate change, but also republican politicians have colluded with fossil fuel interest to deny the basic obvious physics that putting a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was warming,

so, frustration might not adequately say it. a resurfaced memo, before i was born, a decade before i was born, by a nixon staffer, to the white house counsel in 1969, the memo, which was written in september of that year starts off, as with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don't have satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. on the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and perhaps, most particularly, is one that can see the imagination of persons normally indifference to project apocalyptic change. the author than lisette very plainly the explain it like i am five years old version of carbon dioxide warming. it is simple cyclical, but we are pumping a lot more into the atmosphere, and then the consequences, with expected dioxide, he says quote, this could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by seven degrees overnight.

this, in turn, could raise the level of the sea by 10%, goodbye, new york, goodbye washington for that matter. he also points potentially! to change could be mitigated including quote, fairly mammoth man-made efforts, like stopping the burning of fossil fuels. and he advises, i would think this is a subject the administration ought to get involved with a few years later that staffer would be elected to congress's senator, daniel patrick, the legendary four term democrat from new york. here we are, more than half a century later, just finally getting around to the job of protecting that very problem at scale. that is takes only two president, joe biden, signing into law a partyline voted democratic bill, the most ambitious climate legislation in u.s. history, after donald trump essentially try to destroy american climate policy. joining me now is president biden's senior advisor for climate policy, john podesta, who has newly announced that role, it is good to have you

on. first, is vital to contemplate that the basic physics of this have been clear. they go all the way back to the late 1890s, when the greenhouse effect is first figured out, but i mean, you have been in politics a long time. and you have watched a multi- decade effort to deny this, just very basic physics of this problem, which i think people have given up on by now. what you think? >> well, look, reading that memo makes me realize that there was once a time when republicans actually believed in science, so, that is-- now it is important thing to remember. what the science has been clear, the johnson administration even focused on this earlier in the 1960s and what we have seen is a cascading effect of disinformation. that has really been brought to you by the fossil fuel industry, and they have-- i don't think actually they have even convinced the

american people, they have just been able to use their money to convince politicians that it is safer to do nothing than to attack the problem, and of course, as you noted, president biden, vice president harris rejected that and past the biggest investment in clean energy, and climate, not just in u.s. history, but in world history, and it is having an enormous effect right now as that-- as those monies are being deployed and investments are taking place mostly by the private sector. >> yeah, i have to say, covered this for about 20 years, the last few years has been the most areas to cover of the solution side. i had a long conversation with the department of energy about that program that they are pushing billions out for all kinds of innovative new projects. we talked about on our podcast why is this happening. a high risk, high reward, $20 billion fund that comes from the replay inflation reduction act from the epa. what is the idea behind this

new front, because there's all sorts of different projects across the government and basically funding, either implementation or research or moon shots to get us toward a net zero future. >> well, what this is doing is- - and we have a very strong clean energy economy picking up on your last segment, but we want that to spread to everyone, and what this is, this is really a historic program, the vice president-- vice president harris and the administrator were in charlotte today to announce $20 billion of awards to provide low-cost financing through nonprofit community financial it intrusions to help people in low and moderate income neighborhoods across the country and rural america, and urban america and indian reservations access this clean technologies to save them money on their bills. the vice president was in a house today of -- that was retrofitted by one of the grand

keys of this money, the money to capitalize this effort and that family had a utility bill of $600 before it went down to $100 a month after. so, they were saving $500 a month on their utility bill for hard-working family, that is a lot of money, and that can happen, as i said, across the country, and what this program does was provide the working capitol these financial institutions, which would be matched 7-1 by private sector capitol to give people access to be able to put heat pumps instead of gas furnaces or -- you know, electrify their homes , by energy-efficient appliances , new windows and insulation of their rooms and save them a lot of money. >> one of the things, just for folks that maybe you will know this, the financial conundrum here with all of this stuff,

we've got a whole bunch of really promising and good and cost-efficient forms of green energy and weatherization, new windows and all sorts of stuff, heat pumps are great. and the problem, financially, is that it saves you money in the long run and requires upfront cost, that is the issue right? so, folks that don't have lots of access to capitol and don't have the money upfront, this keeps being the issue, for businesses, for households, for everyone. what i'm hearing from you is this is a head on attack on the issue. if we can provide the financing upfront we can help people get over that hump to get to the point of installation so they can recoup those gains on the back room. >> it takes a short of amount of time to recoup those gains, chris. and they have to face a double whammy. they very disproportionate burden of pollution that is coming from fossil fuel power

plants and from industrial pollution, and then they don't have any-- they can't get access to credit, even though they are creditworthy, because big banks don't think, you know, they want to loan to people in disadvantaged neighborhoods to do these kinds of things that really help and help small business in those neighborhoods as well. so, i think what we are trying to do is attack that problem head on through these nonprofit community, financial institutions that have a track record of-- whether it is in building affordable housing or other programs, they can get into the community, they are well known. they can help people access these technologies and, as i said, save people in the long run. by the way, they will put a lot of people to work in those communities doing that work as well. and those will be good paying jobs because of the inflation reduction act. >> those are good jobs, good paying jobs, and they require good all-american labor to do, john podesta is the climate envoy for the white house,

thank you for your time tonight. >> union labor president. >> that's right. that is all in on this thursday night. alice wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> we do not talk about heat pumps, but this is the stuff. >> i talked about heat pumps. >> you do. >> minor correction. i talk a lot about heat pumps. >> i am highlighting it, because you deserve the credit for doing it, because this is actually a things change. >> yes, heat pumps. >> i mean these-- house by house, state-by-state across the country, that is how things change. thank you. >> all right. right. independence. within the trump campaign the person whose name being floated to be trump's attorney general of the united states to run the